You've ignored reality again. You really don't understand the issues here. The FACT is that there are several phones out with 512MB, and one coming out with 1GB. Those are the FACTS.

Your facts aren't real. You'e just pretending to be logical.

So instead of addressing the facts, you pull out a nonsequitor.

First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.

Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?

Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:

1. 256 MB really is the best choice.

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB

3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.

Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

The RAM is not part of the package, as far as I know, and even if it were, the fact that a number of other phones have 512 and now one even will have 1GB means it's not a problem. The customer requests which level of RAM they would want, as they do with other specs. Besides, Apple has had a hand in deciding what goes into their devices from the beginning. As their one model sells vastly better than any other manufacturer's individual model, the size of those sales make a custom request cost less than it may seem.

The RAM is part of the package.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1 (STEP 6)
Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.

The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

First, most, if not all 512 MB or 1 GB phones have separate RAM chips not SOC.

Second, even if someone else is able to put 512MB or 1 GB of RAM on their SOC, how do you know that it's available with Apple's design?

Once again, we're left with choosing one of three options:

1. 256 MB really is the best choice.

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB

3. Apple considered 512 MB but decided that 256 is better - however they're wrong because you know more than they do.

Clearly, the latter two choices are absurd and your continued insistence on your point in spite of any logic indicates that you're either flat out lying or simply babbling about things you don't understand.

Well, at least now you've admitted that the RAM doesn't have to be on the chip, as I've said earlier.

You seem to like only certain decision trees.

How about Apple decided to stick with 256 only because of cost? That's the most likely reason.

Be more careful with your wording, I'd hate to have to edit your posts to me. I've been lenient up until now.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1 (STEP 6)
Jragosta is technically right about doubling the RAM using more power, generating more heat and costing more money, but I think they would have a very minimal affect on all counts. I can't judge the availability of the RAM, but I've heard nothing about RAM shortages, especially such a small amount so I doubt that would even be a consideration. I'm sure Apple has their reasons, as all companies do, and they have always been stingy with RAM, but I don't think it has been accurately expressed on this thread why the iPad only has 256MB and not 512MB.

That's why I said I wasn't sure about it being part of the package. But spec'ing more RAM isn't a big deal, as it's done elsewhere, even for packages with built-in RAM.

The very small amount of extra power is hardly a big deal. And, yes, Apple has always been stingy about RAM. I've never understood that.

Quote:

The best answer I can come up with is that other mobile OSes, just like with other PC OEMs, need more RAM to do the same basic tasks. Apple's iPhone OS multitasking has the potential of being considerably more resource friendly than others. Will this be the case, we'll have to wait and see, but I think the best answer is that Apple simply didn't think it was necessary for the original iPad. I certainly don't think it's necessary for the 3GS after seeing the reduced RAM usage in v4.0 and seeing how much additional RAM my 3GS has left over for backgrounding.

My feeling about that is that while the phone can manage with 256, the iPad shouldn't have to. If Windows tablets can manage to shove one or even two GB RAM into the package, then Apple can afford to use 512MB. Apps on the iPad are larger, and use more RAM.

2. Power usage. Doubling the amount of RAM would increase power usage and reduce battery life.

3. Heat. Doubling the amount of RAM means more heat generation. Since it's part of the A4 package, that could be a problem - possibly even requiring a reduction of CPU speed - with consequent harm for ALL customers.

These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. That's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.

So the problem is that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

On the iPad, at least, the RAM is part of the SOC package. So your entire argument is based on not having any clue what you're babbling about.

Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.

These days, RAM doesn't even get warm due to its own power consumption. Even quad-stacked RAM doesn't have heat problems. It's a non-issue, really. The power consumption is negligible as well.

As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.

The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).

We're left with 3 options:

1. Apple made the right decision.

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option

3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.

Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.

If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.

You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.

Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.

Right. The RAM isn't on the chip as the other components. That's why other manufacturers spec more or less RAM. It's added after it's spec'ed. Some models have the RAM in packages on the mobo itself. That's fine if there's room.

Well, there are some issues with the words here, as I believe they talk about a package-on-package construction. As far as I understand it, the A4 SoC has three packages: 2 for the RAM (128MB in each package) and 1 for the actual processor part. The package-on-package construct should enable apple to use whatever RAM they want, as long as it can be put on their "sockets", though this is not the appropriate term.

Your own link disagrees with you:
"So what is a package? You're looking at one.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'

They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.

But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.

The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).

We're left with 3 options:

1. Apple made the right decision.

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option

3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.

Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.

You're going to have to stop offending me like that. What is your problem?

You're making statements that aren't true, and you're locking yourself up into a corner. If I were the only one to have even questioned the size of RAM in the iPad, then possibly, you might be able to wonder why. But many have questioned it, including writers in the industry. And that included a few software developers. I'm sure that they at least, know more than you do.

And don't forget that what Apple is allowing in OS 4 isn't true multitasking, it's a task manager with allowance for apps to take ten (up from five in earlier betas) minutes to finish a task such as downloading when switched out.

I'm not complaining about that, but it's mostly because of limited memory, as the new cpu is fast enough.

Yes, I know this article below is written by an Android developer, but his statements are still correct, and have been referenced by a number of Apple concentric sites such as Gruber's Daring Fireball, where I found it, as well as MacDailyNews.

As I said, I don't know how much more heat and power is involved, but it will be some.

The point is simple, though. Whatever the reason (cost, power consumption, heat generation, or lack of availability), Apple has chosen to use 256 MB in the iPad (and possibly in the next phone, as well).

We're left with 3 options:

1. Apple made the right decision.

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB and only melgross was smart enough to think that was an option

3. Apple considered 512 MB but chose to use 256 MB for incorrect reasons - because melgross knows more than Apple.

Clearly, only option #1 makes any sense.

If you're in an absolutist frame of mind, yes. But it's probably not an absolute kind of issue. Most of the time, iPad does pretty well as-is, but there are some edge cases that have already cropped up, and the limitations may be more of an issue as time goes on.

It's best to focus on plausible reasons. Cost and availability are ikely good reasons. RAM power consumption and heat is negligible and are not very plausible reasons. At best, it's bullet point padding, but it really isn't any more than that. It's basically like worrying about the Moon's gravity changing your weight, while you're still on Earth. It's there, it's calculable, but ultimately, very negligible compared to the radios, CPU cores and display. If it really was an issue, then they wouldn't be offering 64GB models, because all things being equal, more chip capacity costs more electricity, but no one is complaining about their 64GB models going dead sooner or overheating on first sync.

I would pin it on possible availability issues or possible extreme penny pinching. It looks like the cost of a 512MB RAM die probably costs $10 more at most.

Your own link disagrees with you:
"So what is a package? You're looking at one.
This is a cross-section of the iPhone's ARM processor + RAM package'

They are calling the entire thing (processor AND RAM) a package.

But the semantics really don't matter. We have no way of knowing if Apple could have obtained this package (or 'package on a package' if you wish) with more RAM, or if it would have met their energy specs or if it would have met their heat specs or if it would have met their cost specs. Apple DID know those things and chose 256. It it therefore the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that Apple's choice was wrong.

Actually I stumbled over that one myself, didn't expect you to quote it straight away . However I tried to find other references to the word "package" in the article and there were none that gave further information. So I assumed they meant the RAM layers and processor layer as packages. Also, it made sense to call the RAM layers packages, as I don't see what else would be in another package.

Anyway, let's not get stuck on it.

Overall I agree with your logic approach to the RAM issue, however I think you state "Apple made the right decision" in a weird way. According to you, at least from my understanding, Apple tried the different options and chose the best one for the user experience. But I think we forget that this is an entire new product, and I think that Apple has a really big margin on it. Why? because if it is a flop, they don't want to loose money on it, so they want to be able to get their investments back quickly. Furthermore there were some rumours that if apple didn't sell the iPad well, they would be able to go down in price.

So did Apple make the right choice? From a business point of view, I think so, from a consumer point of view, I'm not so sure.

"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein

I'm not 100% certain that the Nexus screen is Samsung's latest display, a full "Super" AMOLED. I'm just saying that the evidence that it uses the same technology as they do is there. If you read a description of the Super AMOLED by Samsung, and then you read the ARs article about the Nexus Samsung display, there are striking similarities. Does that make it exactly the same? Maybe not, but it sure seems close in many ways.

If anything, the Nexus display has everything except, possibly the extra brightness, though the Nexus display is being touted as using less power and being brighter than other AMOLED displays, just as Samsung's Super displays are.

You haven't as yet given any proof of what you're saying, so yes, you're like a wall. At least I've shown some evidence, even though you choose to not accept it. You haven't shown anything. If you do, I'll accept it.

Is that a problem for you? It seems fair to me.

Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??

Why again do i need to prove this to you? BTW congratulations on 21,00 posts--probably all confrontational, snarky and bitter as hell. How again are you a moderator on this site? Do you think your lack of tact is appropriate? You threaten to edit others posts??

I've never given anyone a point. EVER!. I lean over backwards to be fair about that, no matter to whom they post. But he's been VERY snarky to me, and I've a right to give him a warning.

As for asking for some evidence, what's the problem with that? we all ask for, and give whatever we have in an argument. That's proper.

I see now that you've done so. Good. I see it's the first Samsung phone to use it. As I've been saying, the evidence is that the Nexus Samsung screen uses technologies used also in the Super AMOLED. It does. It's also claimed as being brighter than other AMOLEDs. I didn't say for certain that it was Samsung's latest display, just that it seemed to be a super AMOLED from what I've read. I asked for links. You've now provided one. Assuming Engadget is correct, then this is a more advanced display than Samsung's display in the Nexus One.

Well, it is rather common when arguing to supply sources to back-up your statements. He gave some sources and pointed out what made him think his opinion too.

Yes, I am well aware of that, however I find it difficult to extend that courtesy to a person, a MODERATOR no less, who argues for the sake of arguing and appears to be delusional when it come to common knowledge, link or no link.

I've never given anyone a point. EVER!. I lean over backwards to be fair about that, no matter to whom they post. But he's been VERY snarky to me, and I've a right to give him a warning.

As for asking for some evidence, what's the problem with that? we all ask for, and give whatever we have in an argument. That's proper.

I see now that you've done so. Good. I see it's the first Samsung phone to use it. As I've been saying, the evidence is that the Nexus Samsung screen uses technologies used also in the Super AMOLED. It does. It's also claimed as being brighter than other AMOLEDs. I didn't say for certain that it was Samsung's latest display, just that it seemed to be a super AMOLED from what I've read. I asked for links. You've now provided one. Assuming Engadget is correct, then this is a more advanced display than Samsung's display in the Nexus One.

I'll be very interested to read more about it when it comes out.

You could have alleviated your problems with posting this first.

I'm sorry, but you simply refuse to admit when you are wrong ...that is a problem. Not mine however. Good luck with that.

Yes, I am well aware of that, however I find it difficult to extend that courtesy to a person, a MODERATOR no less, who argues for the sake of arguing and appears to be delusional when it come to common knowledge, link or no link.

You're doing it again. Try disagreeing with a mod on a lot of sites, and you're thrown off, with no warning. You're the offensive one here. You could just say that I was wrong, or that you think I'm wrong. I rarely start these barrages, but I will respond to them.

I don't argue for the sake of it, and rarely do I get into this kind of argument. I post a lot, so you remember the ones that stand out.

Courtesy goes both ways. Between us, you're the only one with lack of courtesy. I've looked back at our posts, and it's only yours that display offensiveness. If you think that lack of agreement until you post some evidence of what you're saying is offensive, that's a problem you have.

Actually I stumbled over that one myself, didn't expect you to quote it straight away . However I tried to find other references to the word "package" in the article and there were none that gave further information. So I assumed they meant the RAM layers and processor layer as packages. Also, it made sense to call the RAM layers packages, as I don't see what else would be in another package.

Anyway, let's not get stuck on it.

Overall I agree with your logic approach to the RAM issue, however I think you state "Apple made the right decision" in a weird way. According to you, at least from my understanding, Apple tried the different options and chose the best one for the user experience. But I think we forget that this is an entire new product, and I think that Apple has a really big margin on it. Why? because if it is a flop, they don't want to loose money on it, so they want to be able to get their investments back quickly. Furthermore there were some rumours that if apple didn't sell the iPad well, they would be able to go down in price.

So did Apple make the right choice? From a business point of view, I think so, from a consumer point of view, I'm not so sure.

You're arguing in circles. Apple has to make a decision based on what's best for their business. Then consumers choose only what's right for them. If Apple offers something the consumers want, then they grow-which is what has been happening. Apple has shown the ability to give consumers what they want more than anyone else in the industry over the past 5 years.

if you go only by what consumers want, it's simple. I want the price cut by 90%, RAM quadrupled, and free 3G service. Looking at only one side of the equation is silly. Apple has to look at both their costs AND what the consumer is willing to pay for - and so should you.

Now, let's get back to the facts at hand. melgross is arguing flat out that Apple made the wrong decision (and you are defending him). In order for that to be a rational position, you'd have to be able to prove that you have the facts to back that claim up - and that Apple was wrong.

As I've said repeatedly (you don't seem to get it, so maybe one more time). There are 3 options:

1. Apple made the right decision (with 'right' being defined as what's best for Apple in the long run - but that includes offering consumers a greater value than the competition, so consumer's needs are included).

2. Apple never even considered 512 MB

3. Apple considered 512 MB and should have chosen it, but did not do so because they made a mistake. This implies that you and melgross know more than Apple does.

You can argue that some tiny subset of people might be willing to pay $100 more for 512 MB or that some subset of people would have been willing to have a shorter battery life or whatever other tradeoffs are involved. But WHEN CONSIDERING THE MARKET AS A WHOLE, Apple decided as they did. You are arguing that their decision was wrong.

So please enlighten us as to what FACTS (not unfounded opinions) you have that prove that Apple was wrong and that you know better than Apple does what level of RAM should have been included.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Don't know why Apple has to be so picky about OLED technology. Who cares that it's not ready for primetime.

Just do it.

Microsoft did so with the Zune, and everyone else is jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They can use early adopters as a focus group, then fine tune it for the "real" version. They should also pre-announce it to gauge consumer interest, then ditch it if the feedback is less than stellar.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of how Apple does things.

They do not use focus groups. They do not issue surveys. They do not design by committee.

Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive are visionary control freaks.

My guess is that dozens of different displays of various performance characteristics, price points, and supply availability were assembled into prototype units and evaluated before Steve himself selected what will be the production part.

Even if there was a competitively priced, well-performing OLED part, it sounds like the suppliers still couldn't crank out enough units for Apple's needs (for every three iPhones, Apple also sells two iPod touches).

So the discussion about OLED screens is moot right now. Maybe in a couple of years there will be an ample supply of quality parts at a price that Apple finds reasonable for their projected production run.

You're doing it again. Try disagreeing with a mod on a lot of sites, and you're thrown off, with no warning. You're the offensive one here. You could just say that I was wrong, or that you think I'm wrong. I rarely start these barrages, but I will respond to them.

I don't argue for the sake of it, and rarely do I get into this kind of argument. I post a lot, so you remember the ones that stand out.

Courtesy goes both ways. Between us, you're the only one with lack of courtesy. I've looked back at our posts, and it's only yours that display offensiveness. If you think that lack of agreement until you post some evidence of what you're saying is offensive, that's a problem you have.

I don't agree with either of you, but I must say that many of the moderators on this site are often as guilty of the "infractions" they punish the members for as the members themselves.

It seems to me like a horribly "broken" forum moderation system overall, it's just that we are all in fear of being banned or temporarily suspended if we speak about it. Don't kid yourselves that you "moderators" aren't exactly like us "contributors" in almost every way.

The only exceptions I see are the really obvious trolls and nasty types that also don't contribute anything to the debate, (techstud et al), and for some reason, those are the ones that get banned or cautioned the least. I know I'm not alone when I say that I really don't understand the criteria the moderators use, nor do I think the rules are applied evenly in any way.

I don't agree with either of you, but I must say that many of the moderators on this site are often as guilty of the "infractions" they punish the members for as the members themselves.

It seems to me like a horribly "broken" forum moderation system overall, it's just that we are all in fear of being banned or temporarily suspended if we speak about it. Don't kid yourselves that you "moderators" aren't exactly like us "contributors" in almost every way.

The only exceptions I see are the really obvious trolls and nasty types that also don't contribute anything to the debate, (techstud et al), and for some reason, those are the ones that get banned or cautioned the least. I know I'm not alone when I say that I really don't understand the criteria the moderators use, nor do I think the rules are applied evenly in any way.

Just sayin

I never kid myself about being somehow different from other posters. I'm not. Before I was a mod, I was a poster, just like you, as are the other mods here. When they asked me if I would do this, I said I would if I could still post as I have. It's difficult, because, in theory, we're not really supposed to mod threads we post in, and visa versa. But it's difficult to totally separate the two. If I see something egregious in a thread I'm in, I have to say, or do something.

But we have a pretty lively group here. I suppose we could all tone it down a lot, but is that really what most people here want?

Even with me, and As I said, I post a lot, despite what a few might think, I rarely get into a fight as a percentage of my posts. It may seem that way to someone who posts at a rate of 5% of what I've posted over time. But if someone has 1,000 posts, and I've got 20,000, it stands to reason that I would be involved in a lot more "arguments" than he would be. It's also interesting that I find that most of my arguments are with the same 6 or so people, over and again. That says as much of them as it does me. Some people come after me because they know I'll usually let them get away with it, at least for a while.

As far as applying rules evenly, that's not as easy as you think. If this were a site where even the slightest movement from center weren't tolerated, then it would be easy. Everyone who wasn't unfailingly polite by the most church-like standards would be removed. Anyone who criticized Apple, its products, people, users, etc., would be removed. That makes it real easy.

But we don't do that. Yes, it gets some people annoyed, but that's the price you pay for the freedom to speak your mind. As far as trolling goes, sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it may seem so, but it's not. It's different for a mod than for a poster when deciding what to remove, or what to censor. When I was just a poster, things seemed clearer, but when confronted with the actual decision, it's more difficult. So most of us bend backwards in trying to be fair about it. Maybe too far.

I don't agree with either of you, but I must say that many of the moderators on this site are often as guilty of the "infractions" they punish the members for as the members themselves.

It seems to me like a horribly "broken" forum moderation system overall, it's just that we are all in fear of being banned or temporarily suspended if we speak about it. Don't kid yourselves that you "moderators" aren't exactly like us "contributors" in almost every way.

The only exceptions I see are the really obvious trolls and nasty types that also don't contribute anything to the debate, (techstud et al), and for some reason, those are the ones that get banned or cautioned the least. I know I'm not alone when I say that I really don't understand the criteria the moderators use, nor do I think the rules are applied evenly in any way.

A community-based down-ranking scoring system is a more effective, far more scalable system. The best example I know of is the one at Slashdot. For years, that was probably one of the most despicable, mean-spirited cauldron of trolling and flame-baiting on the Internet. It was literally unreadable. Then, they instituted the down-ranking comment system where flamers, trollers, spammers and plain old idiots would be pushed into oblivion.

Today Slashdot is a fairly pleasant forum reading experience; five years ago it was an utterly wretched site. Boy Genius Report has a similar ranking system. If a comment gets scored lower than -6 or -7 (I forget), the comment gets hidden and you have to click on it read it. The systems that totally hide content by setting user-controlled threshold levels are the best. The lower you set the threshold, the worst the commentary gets. It's like watching the seeing the debris on the beach at low tide.

Moderators are still useful at such sites for deactivating spam accounts and particularly egregious users, but most of them are quickly discouraged and go elsewhere.

Now I'm not saying that the moderation efforts here aren't sincere, however human-based moderation just doesn't scale well. The bigger the site gets, the more work these people (mostly volunteers) have to do, and they eventually burn out, get tired/cranky, etc. Let the community do peer review of the content, not the users.

A community-based down-ranking scoring system is a more effective, far more scalable system. The best example I know of is the one at Slashdot. For years, that was probably one of the most despicable, mean-spirited cauldron of trolling and flame-baiting on the Internet. It was literally unreadable. Then, they instituted the down-ranking comment system where flamers, trollers, spammers and plain old idiots would be pushed into oblivion.

Today Slashdot is a fairly pleasant forum reading experience; five years ago it was an utterly wretched site. Boy Genius Report has a similar ranking system. If a comment gets scored lower than -6 or -7 (I forget), the comment gets hidden and you have to click on it read it. The systems that totally hide content by setting user-controlled threshold levels are the best. The lower you set the threshold, the worst the commentary gets. It's like watching the seeing the debris on the beach at low tide.

Moderators are still useful at such sites for deactivating spam accounts and particularly egregious users, but most of them are quickly discouraged and go elsewhere.

Now I'm not saying that the moderation efforts here aren't sincere, however human-based moderation just doesn't scale well. The bigger the site gets, the more work these people (mostly volunteers) have to do, and they eventually burn out, get tired/cranky, etc. Let the community do peer review of the content, not the users.

I agree with that. The down, and up-ranking seems to work well, but not always. It would make things easier all around, but the software has to allow it. I'm not sure if the software here does.

I agree with that. The down, and up-ranking seems to work well, but not always. It would make things easier all around, but the software has to allow it. I'm not sure if the software here does.

Well, we can't fault you for something that's out of your control. You're right that that the up/down-ranking doesn't always work. Or rather, it reflects the true nature of the community. If there is a critical mass of people with a certain ideology, they will push out all other voices. It ends up being like the propaganda group of some religious sect.

You are making a valiant effort with the tools that AppleInsider provides. Whether or not they are adequate is debatable.

Ok now the cat fight about who is better AMOLED or Super Duper AMOLED or whatever is over, lets get back to talking about something in the article that not many people have mentioned.

The guy states that there is both an N90 and N91 model coming out and that the N91 is a lesser model than the N90.

Call me stupid here but i cant recall ANY other tech company that makes the newer model or in this case the higher model number the worse performing option.

People like BIGGER numbers. They are attracted to them. So if this was the case then, why would we call the N90 the better one of the two?

Here is my version of the "rumour"

Apple will release the N90 model of the iphone we have all seen from the Gizmodo reveal.
Nothing that special there as we pretty much know the specs and stuff.

The only thing to work out is capacity and i have a feeling that we may actually see only 2 models this time around, a 32Gig and a 64Gig (or 40 and 80 however they play that one).

thanks to the N88 aka the 3GS we will have the lower end of the market covered. Again these will be the black only 16gig models but running OS4.0 and possibly called the Iphone SD, They could possibly even put the internals into the newer case but i'm thinking no.

This then leaves the question of the N91??

Well i think that what we may actually see is a phone that is EXACTLY the same as the N90 BUT it will have the CDMA chipset that Verizon need.

This way the phones can be differentiated by model number but can be both called the Iphone HD.

This way the Verizon rumours would be quashed, the IphoneHD people would be happy and everyone wins.

Yes, you would be wrong if those are internal designations based on chronological filing with some project management system.

They aren't public model numbers.

What if they are internal model numbers, similar to how LG have their KU990 but everyone knows it as the Viewty.

Meaning that Apple can use them for designating a difference.

On saying all that though this Analyst has gotten the model numbers to say that there is another model out there, the general public who are tech savvy can look up on a GSMarena or similar site and see people mentioning the numbers.

thus the cycle begins.

Hell the Macbooks have model numbers to tell them apart, eg Macbook Unibody 5,1
no one calls it the Macbook 5,1. Its called the Macbook or the Unibody Macbook, hell it could even be called the Limited Edition Aluminium Unibody Macbook if your that way inclined.

The point im making is that they will never use a higher designated model number for a lesser product. Similar yes but lesser never. It will ALWAYS get a different reference number sequence.

Until Apple has a dual core Cortex 9 running at 1.25GHZ or higher, we won't see virtual memory used which would obviate the need for more RAM. So we need more RAM. We're seeing it in a number of newer phones, as much as 1GB. It eases multitasking, even the semi version that Apple has implemented. Why limit what can be done, unless they're just trying to protect their MacBook sales?

Why do you believe that a dual core A9 is required for VM? You can run VM on a jailbroken iPhone 3G today which lets you background more apps. That's even with the older VMSA of the ARM1176 vs Cortex A8.

Could be why they didn't bother upping the RAM on the iPad if the expectation is that many of the RAM issues on the iPad could be resolved by adding a swap file in 4.x sometime. The VM system is all there (both HW and OS) and it's a plist mod away. As to why Apple hasn't enabled it...I dunno. Popular thinking is that it's due to excessive flash wear but unless you're constantly paging it'll take a long time for the VM to make a noticeable dent in flash lifetime.

[QUOTE=nht;1639957]Why do you believe that a dual core A9 is required for VM? You can run VM on a jailbroken iPhone 3G today which lets you background more apps. That's even with the older VMSA of the ARM1176 vs Cortex A8.(quote)

Reealll slow.

Quote:

Could be why they didn't bother upping the RAM on the iPad if the expectation is that many of the RAM issues on the iPad could be resolved by adding a swap file in 4.x sometime. The VM system is all there (both HW and OS) and it's a plist mod away. As to why Apple hasn't enabled it...I dunno. Popular thinking is that it's due to excessive flash wear but unless you're constantly paging it'll take a long time for the VM to make a noticeable dent in flash lifetime.

"Though it reportedly will not have an OLED screen, the new iPhone is rumored to have the same in-plane switching (IPS) technology for superior viewing angles found in the 9.7-inch display of the iPad. The screen will also reportedly include fringe-field switching, or FFS, technology, which is said to improve the device's e-book reader functions."

I read a detailed explanation with links that IPS and FFS are two different things, you can't have both, but I can't find where I read it. It's either IPS, or the supposedly better FFS.

"Though it reportedly will not have an OLED screen, the new iPhone is rumored to have the same in-plane switching (IPS) technology for superior viewing angles found in the 9.7-inch display of the iPad. The screen will also reportedly include fringe-field switching, or FFS, technology, which is said to improve the device's e-book reader functions."

I read a detailed explanation with links that IPS and FFS are two different things, you can't have both, but I can't find where I read it. It's either IPS, or the supposedly better FFS.

Anyone have further technical explanation on this?

They're similar things. It's either one or the other.

It's possible that the article got this confused. AFFS (Advanced Fringe Field Switching) is sort of a more advanced IPS. It's brighter, and is supposed to have better color. I don't know (does anyone outside the manufacturers?) if Apple is using this. I don't think LG makes an AFFS panel, though they do make Enhanced IPS panels.

Why do you believe that a dual core A9 is required for VM? You can run VM on a jailbroken iPhone 3G today which lets you background more apps. That's even with the older VMSA of the ARM1176 vs Cortex A8.

Reealll slow.

The performance of VM paging is (mostly/often) more dependent on the speed of the storage than the CPU. The A8 and A9 both use the same ARMv7-A VMSA. There's no reason the current A8 in the 3GS, iPad and upcoming iPhone 4 would be very different VM wise than any of the A9 based solutions. All the A profile ARMv7 (Cortex A5, A8, A9) have VMSA as a required component of the profile.

The ARMv6 VMSA is different that the v7 one but ARM did a pretty good job in improving the speed of VMSA context switches in v6 over v5. I dunno how much more v7 builds on that but folks with jailbroken iPhones that use the backgrounder seems to think the performance isn't too shabby in comparison to single app and no VM...as in it's more or less as snappy as a 3G usually is these days...which isn't all that snappy anymore anyway.

If I had an iPad that was hitting memory limits I'd be very tempted to jailbreak it and enable it. Instead I'm getting the next iPhone and skipping the 1st gen iPad mostly due to the limit how many toys I buy in a year. I figure a new phone or iPad every alternating year is a nice little cycle that doesn't excessively drain the wallet.